Pages

Saturday, November 24, 2012

When A Democrat Pollster Makes More Sense Than Ann Coulter

Some people cannot ever admit they were wrong.

A lot of us who didn't support Mitt Romney in the primaries, because we'd questioned the whole "most electable" narrative would have been willing to admit we were wrong, if he'd been elected over Richard Milhous Obama, and if he'd done a good job as President. That is, despite the fact he's lost more elections than he won, and he did not have a track record of being a conservative.

Really Ann? You mean Romney's one debate bests Reagan's decades of advocacy for conservatism, his battles with the Republican establishment, and his building a conservative movement? Fact is Romney has done nothing for conservatism. I repeat, nothing. No leadership. No grassroots efforts. No major policy initiatives. Nothing. Reagan won two landslides. Romney won nothing. Cherry-picking facts Ann, in some strange cult-like obsession, fools no one. Same with your cheerleading for Chris Christie.

Pat Caddell, the Democrat pollster who worked for Carter's losing 1980 campaign, shows why even a Democrat makes more sense than alleged conservative Coulter in looking at why Romney lost (Breitbart.com).

Speaking at The David Horowitz Freedom Center's "Restoration Weekend" in Florida on November 16, Pat Caddell indicted what he called the Republican "consultant-lobbyist-establishment" complex for losing a presidential campaign in 2012 President Barack Obama had no business winning.

“No presidential campaign should be run by consultants,” Caddell said. “They should be run by people who are committed to the candidate and not into making big money.”

Caddell, the former Jimmy Carter adviser who consulted on the "Hope and the Change" movie that profiled disaffected Obama 2008 voters who were not going to vote for him in 2012, warned Republicans that the consultant-lobbyist-establishment complex may threaten to take the party into oblivion if not marginalized.

The Romney campaign, Caddell said, was driven be establishment consultants and was a failure of mechanics and message.

“But most of all, it was a failure of imagination,” Caddell said. ““It was the single worst campaign in modern history of a challenger who had a chance to win ... and that’s the truth and nothing can take away from that.”

Caddell said “Republicans never attempted to put a frame around the national election” because “the people who run the messaging in the Republican party and their consultants refused to do it.”

...Too often, Caddell said the Republican consultant-lobbyist-establishment complex ignores anything that could be effective if it does not allow them to profit.

For instance, even though a Frank Luntz focus group found that the “Hope and the Change” movie was the most effective way for Republicans to appeal to independent voters, Caddell accused the Republican “consultant-lobbyist-establishment complex” of not utilizing the film because “that communication didn’t fit” in their conventional plans to make the consultant class wealthy.

Caddell said Republicans have to go away from a bureaucratic, top-down approach to messaging and outreach and be more imaginative in the future if they do not want to go the way of the Whigs. He said Republicans have been so poor on combating narratives and framing their own messages that minorities -- like Asians -- voted overwhelmingly for Obama despite sharing conservative values because they think Republicans "do not care about minorities."

He said the Republican party needed to be more imaginative -- like promoting education reform against teachers unions as the new battle for civil rights and running against corruption in Washington, which a Breitbart News/Judicial Watch Election Night poll found 85% of voters were concerned about.

“Why are Republicans not the anti-establishment party?,” Caddell asked.

Caddell emphasized a “narrative is a story” that comes over a period of time and “not just a single message.”

He cited Ronald Reagan as someone who knew how to speak to Democrats and “ordinary and common” Americans and bring them over to his side because Reagan had been one of them and came from regular Americans and shared their experiences.

“That is a quality that has been missing a long time in a search for alternative candidate," Caddell said, in reference to Reagan's ability to resonate with blue collar Americans.

He's right. That was the key to Reagan's electoral success. It wasn't because Reagan was a "cult of personality" figure. It was because Reagan had respect for the everyday American citizen, those who "make the country work." I noted earlier how Reagan warned the GOP could not limit itself to the "country club, big business image" it had, and in many ways went back to with the first George Bush Presidency (1989-1992).

But I guess it's hard to understand conservatism and making it relate to Americans of all backgrounds when all that motivates you is the next book you can sell, huh Ann?